Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- LAAIQ ALI Alias JUGNOO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- L. M. D. MALL (LAILLA MUHAMMAD) STAFF NURSE, ZANANA HOSPITAL, DERA1983 PLD Supreme Court 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the pay scale and status of a Staff Nurse, whose position was previously affirmed by a civil court decree. The appellant challenged the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunal's decision, which denied her the National Pay Scale (N.P.S.) No. 9, classifying her instead as an untrained nurse entitled only to N.P.S. No. 1. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could disregard the appellant's established status and pay history to reclassify her based on new training criteria. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s status as a Staff Nurse was conclusively determined by the civil court decree, and her long-standing pay history entitled her to the prescribed and consolidated pay scales. The Court ruled that the introduction of new National Pay Scales could not be used to retroactively reduce the appellant's established pay scale or vested rights. The principle laid down is that administrative rules cannot override vested rights established by judicial decree or long-standing service history, and a civil servant's pay cannot be arbitrarily reduced by new classification criteria.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal disregard a prior civil court decree establishing the status and pay entitlement of a civil servant?
- Does the introduction of new National Pay Scales allow the government to retroactively reduce the established pay scale of a civil servant?
- Is a government servant entitled to the consolidated pay scale if they fail to exercise an option within the prescribed period?
- KUTUBUDDIN vs ALLAHDAD AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 3181 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- KUBRA BIBI AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- KHYZER HAYAT AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2279(1) · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- KHYBER ELECTRIC LAMPS MANUFACTURINGCO. LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged a government notification issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which exempted certain manufacturers of electric bulbs and fluorescent tubes from excise duty. The petitioner, a competing manufacturer, alleged that the exemption was discriminatory, mala fide, and lacked jurisdiction because it favored a specific company (Respondent No. 2) while excluding others. The core legal questions were whether the government’s classification for tax exemption based on the fuel source (furnace oil/LPG versus natural gas) constituted illegal discrimination, and whether the subsequent notification could be treated as a valid corrigendum to the initial one. The Court held that the government possesses the authority to grant exemptions based on reasonable classifications, such as the cost of production associated with different fuel types. It found no evidence of discrimination or mala fide intent, as the exemption was grounded in the higher operational costs of using furnace oil and LPG. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the second notification functioned as a valid corrigendum to clarify the government's original intent, dismissing the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Can the government grant excise duty exemptions based on the type of fuel used in the manufacturing process?
- Does a notification issued to clarify the intent of a previous government order constitute a valid corrigendum?
- Is a tax exemption policy discriminatory if it distinguishes between manufacturers based on operational costs?
- Khwaja MUHAMMAD NASIM AND Others vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND Another1983 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Appellate Court, and the High Court, which held that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The core legal question is whether an agreement by a vendor to pay a specified monthly amount for continuing to reside in the sold property after a stipulated period creates the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the question of whether a tenancy had been created in the circumstances—where the vendor continued occupation and agreed to pay a monthly sum—requires reconsideration. The principle established is that an arrangement permitting a vendor to remain in possession of sold property upon payment of a periodic sum may warrant examination to determine if a landlord-tenant relationship was thereby constituted.
Questions settled- Does an agreement by a vendor to pay a monthly sum for continuing to reside in a sold property create the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether the mere agreement to pay an amount for occupying another's property establishes a tenancy?
- Does occupation of a property after the expiry of a stipulated period with implied consent constitute a tenancy?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAN IF AND Others1983 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PECO LTD.1983 PLC 274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs JAMAT ALI Etc.S1983 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's order remanding a criminal case for a de novo trial. The core legal question concerns the legality of remanding a trial involving deaf and dumb accused persons where the trial court failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding their ability to understand the proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the initial omission justified a de novo trial for all co-accused, including those without disabilities, and stayed the remand proceedings pending the hearing. The key principle laid down is that an inquiry into the capability of a deaf and dumb accused to understand court proceedings should ideally be conducted at the initial stage of the trial to ensure a fair trial and proper compliance with procedural safeguards.
Questions settled- Whether failure to conduct an initial inquiry regarding a deaf and dumb accused's ability to understand proceedings under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial?
- Is a de novo trial justified for co-accused who suffer from no physical disability when the remand is necessitated by the disability of other co-accused?
- When must an inquiry into the understanding capacity of a deaf and dumb accused be conducted during a criminal trial?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Haji KABIR AHMED AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs ATA MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2356 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VEHARI AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 192 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ALTAF HUSSAIN BALUCH vs THE STATE THE STATE1983 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of appeals against death sentences for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the First Information Report (FIR) given alleged delays and discrepancies, the effect of the prosecution's failure to examine all listed witnesses, the validity of an alibi plea, and the credibility of a witness not produced before the Committing Magistrate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court held that an FIR is not intended to record minor details, and subsequent elaboration does not constitute a change in the prosecution's version. It affirmed that the prosecution is not obligated to produce every witness listed in the calendar of witnesses. Additionally, the Court ruled that the burden of proving a special plea, such as an alibi, rests solely on the accused. Finally, it established that the non-production of a witness before a Committing Magistrate does not diminish their credibility at trial, provided their name was present on the prosecution's calendar of witnesses.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a witness before the Committing Magistrate render their testimony at trial unreliable?
- Does the burden of proving an alibi rest on the prosecution or the accused?
- Is the prosecution required to produce every witness listed in the calendar of witnesses?
- Does the elaboration of details in testimony at trial, which were not present in the FIR, constitute a change in the prosecution's version?
- KHUSHDIL KHAN vs AlibUL JABBAR AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- KHUSHAL KHAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI1983 PLC 358 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID vs PIR BAKHSH AND 7 OTHERS1983 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID BIBI vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA1983 PLC 861 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2562 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM vs Sh. FAZAL KARIM1983 CLC 2538 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-08-02Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, filed by a former Police Constable against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service, which followed unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred and whether the petitioner could rely on private medical certificates to contest findings of fitness for duty made by a competent authority's designated medical officer. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Tribunal was indeed time-barred, as the petitioner failed to file within the statutory limitation period after the dismissal order. Furthermore, on merits, the Court affirmed that a competent authority has the power to refer an officer to a designated Medical Superintendent, whose opinion prevails unless challenged through the constitution of a Medical Board. The Court established that an employee cannot unilaterally choose private doctors to override official medical assessments and that no question of law of public importance was raised to warrant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a departmental appeal against a dismissal order enlarge the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is a public servant entitled to rely on private medical certificates to override the findings of a Medical Superintendent designated by the competent authority?
- What is the procedure for challenging the medical opinion of a Medical Superintendent regarding an employee's fitness for duty?
- KHURSHID AHMED vs The STATE1983 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Muhammad Ayub. The petitioner and a co-accused were convicted for the murder, which was allegedly motivated by a property dispute. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular evidence from witnesses labeled as 'chance witnesses' and the impact of the complainant turning hostile at trial, alongside a request for sentence mitigation based on the co-accused's sentence commutation. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the hostile complainant did not invalidate the prosecution's case, as the ocular evidence of other witnesses remained credible and consistent with the medical evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, noting that the petitioner's specific role and clear motive justified the capital punishment, regardless of the co-accused's sentence. The principle laid down is that the testimony of a hostile witness is subject to judicial scrutiny and does not automatically discredit other corroborated prosecution evidence.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of a hostile witness automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Can the evidence of witnesses present at the scene be discarded merely because they are characterized as chance witnesses?
- Is a death sentence for one co-accused necessarily unsustainable if the co-accused's sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment?
- KHURSHID AHMED vs HASHMI CAN COMPANY LTD.1983 PLC 1090 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID Ahmads vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by Khurshid Ahmad challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the confirmation of his death sentence for the murder of his wife, Mst. Shamim Akhtar. The prosecution case rested on eyewitness accounts, recovery of a blood-stained razor and clothes, motive, and medical evidence. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony and corroborative recoveries were sufficient to sustain the capital conviction, and whether extenuating circumstances warranted a lesser sentence given that the exact genesis of the incident remained shrouded in mystery. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the eyewitnesses and recoveries firmly established the guilt of the appellant, thereby maintaining his conviction for murder. However, the Court ruled that because the immediate trigger and precise circumstances preceding the attack behind the school building were unknown, the appellant was entitled to a mitigated penalty. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that where the genesis of an occurrence is shrouded in mystery and sudden provocation or unexplained events immediately precede the crime, the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life is appropriately awarded instead of capital punishment. The conviction was upheld, the death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life, and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses from different villages can be relied upon when their presence at the crime scene is satisfactorily explained and corroborated by blood-stained clothing?
- Does the uncertainty surrounding the immediate genesis of an incident constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period spent as an under-trial prisoner when computing a sentence?
- KHURSHID AHMAD ZAIDI vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 514 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Line Superintendent of WAPDA, was convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification (a bribe) for restoring an electric connection, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The appellant challenged his conviction through an appeal before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the tainted money beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the evidence of interested witnesses harboring enmity was sufficiently corroborated. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions regarding the recovery of the tainted money, discrepancies in witness accounts, and suppression of material facts concerning the prior enmity between the complainant and the accused over official disconnections. The key principle laid down is that in trap cases, the prosecution bears a heavy onus to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and where material contradictions exist and the witnesses are hostile or interested, independent corroboration is mandatory, failing which the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused in a trap case?
- Does a material contradiction between the eyewitness testimony and the raiding magistrate regarding the place of recovery of tainted money vitiate the conviction?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses harboring a prior grudge or enmity against the accused form the sole basis for a conviction under anti-corruption laws?
- What is the legal effect of suppressing the background of official enmity and previous departmental disputes in a criminal trial for bribery?
- KHURSHID AHMAD NAZ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.G. KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
- KHURSHEED HYDER vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.1983 PLC 298 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- KHUNA GUL vs Mian SAID FARID AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed in Swat, where the sale occurred on February 23, 1974, when the local customary law ('Riwaj') governed the area. Under Article 255 of the Riwajnama Swat, the petitioner had a one-month limitation period to file a pre-emption suit, which he failed to do within time. Subsequently, on May 20, 1974, the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Application of Laws) Regulation 1974 extended the N-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 and the Limitation Act 1908 to Swat. The petitioner then filed a new suit within the one-year limitation period provided under the newly extended Act. The core legal question was whether the extension of the Limitation Act and the Pre-emption Act could revive a cause of action that had already become time-barred under the previously applicable customary law. The Supreme Court held that while a suit is generally governed by the law of limitation in force at the time of its institution, a subsequent change in the law of limitation cannot resuscitate or revitalize a cause of action that had already become barred under the old law, as the opposite party had acquired a vested right.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent change or extension of the law of limitation revive a cause of action that has already become time-barred under the previously applicable law?
- Does the extension of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1950 and the Limitation Act 1908 to Swat via Regulation II of 1974 affect rights and liabilities acquired or incurred under the pre-existing customary law ('Riwaj')?
- Whether a defendant's acquired title or defense of limitation can be defeated by a subsequent procedural enactment extending the limitation period after the original period has expired?
- KHUDAYAR KHAN AND 9 OTHERS vs QUTUB KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 144 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- KHUDABUX vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION AND OTHERS1983 PLC 16 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged orders of Sind Labour Courts and the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on the preliminary ground that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applied to Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and ousted the jurisdiction of Labour Courts. The core legal question was whether the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 excludes the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to adjudicate individual employee grievances like wrongful dismissal or termination. The Sindh High Court held, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. NIRC, that where the Act applies, no other forum such as the Labour Court can resolve disputes between employer and employee arising from terms and conditions of service, and the statutory scheme excludes other forums. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 ousts the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the specified authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 have the power to adjudicate upon individual employee grievances?
- Whether observations of the Supreme Court regarding the exclusion of other forums constitute binding conclusions rather than mere obiter dicta?
- KHUDA YAR KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PAKISTAN1983 PLC (C. S.) 95 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND Other1983 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, grandson of a donor, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court. The petition arose from an order that vacated a previous confirmation of a gift of land made under Martial Law Regulation 115. Subsequently, Martial Law Regulation 115 was amended retrospectively by Sind Ordinance No. XIV of 1972, rendering gifts to non-heirs void ab initio. The core legal questions involved whether the amending ordinance was ultra vires the Interim Constitution and whether the cancellation of the gift confirmation without notice to the donee was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the gift stood void by operation of law rendering notice unnecessary, and that the amendment did not violate the Fundamental Rights embodied in the Constitution. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory amendment renders a transaction void ab initio by operation of law, consequential administrative orders confirming such transactions fall automatically, obviating the need for elaborate review proceedings or individual notice.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment making certain gifts void ab initio operates by operation of law to invalidate a prior gift confirmation?
- Is a separate notice necessary to a donee when a gift stands void ab initio by operation of a retrospective statutory amendment?
- Whether Sind Ordinance No. XIV of 1972 is ultra vires the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution?
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND Other1983 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a constitutional petition challenging the disposal of an urban property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner exceeded the scope of a High Court remand order by dividing the disputed property between the petitioner and the respondent, and whether the petitioner retained locus standi to contest the transfer after surrendering his rights to a third party. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had lost his locus standi by surrendering his rights to seek transfer in favor of another individual. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner had acquiesced to the remand order, which broadly opened all questions regarding the property's transfer, including its divisibility. The Court affirmed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction in dividing the property, as it was in the possession of multiple claimants. The principle established is that a party who accepts a remand order cannot later challenge the scope of that order, and a claimant who surrenders their rights to transfer lacks standing to contest subsequent property allocations.
Questions settled- Does a claimant who has surrendered their right to seek transfer of property retain locus standi to challenge subsequent transfer orders?
- Can a party who accepts a remand order later challenge the authority of the subordinate officer to decide issues within the scope of that remand?
- Is a Deputy Settlement Commissioner competent to divide a property between multiple occupants if the remand order opens all questions regarding the disposal of the house?
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN1983 SCMR 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree for possession of land in favor of the respondent. The respondent had entered into an 'adalapi' agreement with the petitioner in 1963 for the development of a mango orchard on 84 kanals of land. The respondent sued for possession in 1971, alleging the petitioner failed to fulfill the contractual terms within the stipulated seven-year period. The trial court decreed the suit, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, affirming that time was of the essence and that the petitioner failed to develop the orchard as agreed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that time was not of the essence and claimed entitlement to compensation for improvements. The Supreme Court held that the issues raised were essentially questions of fact, noting that the lower courts concurrently found the petitioner failed to comply with the agreement and failed to provide evidence justifying compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding breach of contract?
- Is a party entitled to compensation for improvements on land if they fail to prove the costs incurred?
- Does a failure to develop land within a stipulated timeframe under an adalapi agreement justify a decree for possession?
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1983 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 515 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND 2 Others IQBAL Alias BALEY vs THE STATE THE STATE THE STATE1983 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- KHUBAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1693 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT BHATTI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 889 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning convictions under sections 304, Part I, 324, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties, who are close relatives, entered into a compromise. The legal heirs of the deceased victims stated that they accepted compensation and had forgiven the petitioners, expressing no objection to their acquittal. The Advocate-General expressed no opposition, and several heirs were present or filed affidavits confirming the settlement. The Supreme Court considered the compromise in the interest of peace and good relations, dismissed the petition as not pressed for some petitioners whose sentences were already served, converted the petition into an appeal for the remaining principal petitioners, and reduced their substantive sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fines and compensation orders.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in view of a compromise between the parties in a criminal matter?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Whether a sentence of fine can be maintained while reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment based on a compromise?
- KHIZAR HAYAT AND Others vs THE STATE---1983 PCr.LJ 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT AND Others AND GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE KHIZAR HAYAT1983 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- Khawaja SHAIQ HASSAN vs Rai AHMAD NOOR AND Other1983 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court concerned the transfer of the residential portion of a house in Jhang Sadar, an evacuee property. The core legal questions revolved around the appellant's entitlement as an allottee deemed to be in possession, the timeliness of the respondent's appeal against the rejection of his L.H. Form, and the legality of dividing the property to enable transfer to a local resident. The Supreme Court held that the question of limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction and must be decided by Settlement Tribunals even if not urged by parties. It further ruled that the bifurcation of a house to reduce its value below Rs. 10,000 for transfer to a local was contrary to the Chief Settlement Commissioner's notification, unless such division pre-existed partition and formed an independent unit. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and declaring the appellant entitled to the transfer of the residential portion of the property.
Questions settled- Does the question of limitation go to the root of jurisdiction for Settlement Tribunals?
- Are Settlement Tribunals obligated to decide the question of limitation even if not raised by the parties?
- Is the bifurcation of a house permissible to bring its value below Rs. 10,000 to enable transfer to a local in possession?
- Does participation in an auction of commercial units estop a party from challenging the transfer of a disputed residential property?
- What constitutes "possession" under Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Khawaja NASEERUDDIN vs KHALID RASHID1983 CLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE--1983 P Cr. LJ 2070 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- Khawaja JALAL DIN AND OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHOREAND OTHERS1983 CLC 2565 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-08Read full judgment →
- KHANI ZAMAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Khani Zaman, a Head Constable, for the murder of an Army Naik (N. K. Lal Hussain) during an altercation at a cinema in Kohat. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of an exculpatory statement made by a co-accused (Mir Abbas) under section 30 of the Evidence Act, and whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a statement by a co-accused that exculpates the maker while heavily implicating a co-accused does not amount to a 'confession' and is entirely inadmissible against the co-accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act. Setting aside the statement of the co-accused and noting that no eyewitness saw the actual firing inside the manager's room, the Court found the remaining evidence insufficient to prove the charge. The appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released.
Questions settled- Is a statement by a co-accused that exculpates the maker while incriminating another accused admissible as a confession under section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of an inadmissible statement of a co-accused?
- Whether the application of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is justified when the fatal act is attributed to the independent personal volition of a single accused?
- Khan ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 33 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- Khan ZIAULLAH KHAN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1983 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands). The Settlement Commissioner had cancelled an allotment of land previously made to the petitioners, favoring respondent No. 2, whose claim had been pending since 1961, whereas the petitioners' claim only originated in 1970. The petitioners challenged this cancellation, arguing that even if the cancellation was valid, the authorities should have only allotted a portion of the land to respondent No. 2, allowing the petitioners to retain the remaining balance. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings, which noted that the Settlement Commissioner could not allot an area exceeding the claim of respondent No. 2. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's position, holding that if the area allotted to the respondent is less than the total land previously held by the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to retain the surplus. The Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the relevant authorities to adjust the allotment based on the actual extent of the respondent's claim.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner allot land in excess of a claimant's entitlement?
- Are petitioners entitled to retain surplus land if the successful claimant's entitlement is less than the total land allotted?
- Does the cancellation of an allotment for a superior claim require the forfeiture of the entire land if the claim is smaller than the total area?
- Khan ZAMAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1983 CLC 611 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
- Khan ZAMAN KHAN vs I.-G. OF PAKISTAN RAILWAY POLICE1983 PLC (C. S.) 233 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- KHAN SHAHZADA vs Maulvi FAZAL RABI AND 3 Otiimss1983 SCMR 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether an Election Tribunal can inquire into the validity of ballot-papers for the first time when no objection was raised before the Presiding Officer during the count under the N.-W. F. P. Local Councils (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1979. The election for the Chairman of a Union Council resulted in a tie, resolved by drawing lots in favor of the appellant. The first respondent challenged the election via an Election Petition before the Deputy Commissioner, who inspected the ballot-papers, found two votes cast in favor of the appellant to be invalid due to improper marking, and declared the first respondent successful. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Election Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction under Rule 8 to determine election disputes and examine ballot validity, and that the failure to raise an objection before the Presiding Officer does not bar the Tribunal from deciding the question. The Court also rejected pleas of estoppel and acquiescence, affirming that there can be no estoppel against a statute.
Questions settled- Can an Election Tribunal examine the validity of ballot-papers for the first time when no objection was raised before the Presiding Officer during the count?
- Does the failure of a candidate to object to ballot-papers before the Presiding Officer bar them from filing an Election Petition challenging the election result?
- Can the doctrine of estoppel or acquiescence be invoked against a statutory procedure governing election disputes?
- What is the scope of jurisdiction of an Election Tribunal under Rule 8 of the N.-W. F. P. Local Councils (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1979?
- KHAN REHMAN MIAN vs TOR LALI BACHA1983 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, including the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application and held that the respondent's pre-emption suit was within time. The core legal question concerned the determination of the starting point of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit where the sale of land was effected through an unregistered document and not recorded in the register of mutations, specifically invoking section 31(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, which links limitation to the date of taking physical possession. The Supreme Court held that all three courts below correctly appreciated the evidence, including the petitioner's own statement, in concluding that actual physical possession was taken four to five months after the sale transaction rather than on the date of the execution of the sale-deed. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- What is the starting point of limitation for a pre-emption suit under section 31(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, when the sale is made through an unregistered document not recorded in the register of mutations?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the date of taking physical possession of suit land based on the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE---1983 P Cr. LJ 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs S. H. O., POLICE STATION MANGTANWALA, DISTRICT1983 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 901 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-23Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs Ch. SAMI ULLAH KHAN1983 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the tenant had committed a default in the payment of rent, thereby justifying the striking off of his defence under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Rent Controller had initially ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent, subsequently striking out the defence for non-compliance regarding specific months. However, the Appellate Court reversed this finding, determining that previous deposits made by the tenant were sufficient to cover the alleged arrears, thus negating the claim of default. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court, upon review, affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the determination of default was a question of fact. Having examined the accounts, the Court concluded that no default had occurred. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent deposits unless a clear error is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with a finding of fact regarding rent default when lower courts have concurrent findings?
- Does the adjustment of previously deposited amounts against alleged rent arrears negate a finding of default under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs Mst. JAN BEGUM1983 PLD Azad J & K 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- KHAN MIR vs MIAN NOOR1983 PLD Peshawar 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- KHAN IMTIAZ AHMAD KHAN vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 28 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
- KHAN Alias KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 156 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- KHALIL UR REHMAN vs IBRAHIM1983 PCr.LJ 717 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMED vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2281 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMED AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD vs S. KARAR HUSSAIN1983 CLC 2762 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD vs RAISUL HASSAN RIZVI1983 CLC 2781 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- KHALIDA NASREEN AND 2 Other vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, RAHIMYAR1983 PLC (C. 5.) 1133 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHALID PARVIZ vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 1003 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-30Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEIKH AND Other1983 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal regarding the determination of seniority of civil servants. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the order passed by the Service Tribunal was based on correct statutory and legal principles applicable to the determination of seniority for civil servants. Upon review, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the Tribunal's decision. Regarding the prayer made by the petitioners to suspend the operation of the impugned order pending the final adjudication of the appeals, the Court found no sufficient justification to grant such interim relief. Consequently, the Court proceeded to grant leave to consider the merits of the legal questions raised concerning seniority determination, while declining to stay the operation of the impugned order. The judgment serves as a procedural step in the appellate process, focusing on the necessity of reviewing the Tribunal's application of seniority rules without disturbing the existing order during the pendency of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is there sufficient justification to suspend the operation of a Service Tribunal's order regarding civil servant seniority pending an appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court have grounds to grant leave to appeal to examine the statutory principles applied by a Service Tribunal in determining seniority?
- KHALID IQBAL vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 567 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- KHALID AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 396 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- KHALID ADAMJEE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI1983 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose from consolidated income-tax cases where assessees sought rectification of their assessments under section 35 of the Income-tax Act to exclude dividend income received from tax-holiday companies under section 15-BB. The Income-tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Appellate Tribunal all rejected the rectification applications. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the refusal to rectify the assessments, and whether dividend income derived from tax-exempt company income could lawfully be subjected to income-tax. The Sindh High Court held that while the power under section 35 to rectify mistakes apparent from the record is wider than Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and includes errors of law, rectification is impermissible where the mistake is not ascertainable from the existing record without holding fresh inquiries. Because the assessees had neither disclosed the nature of the dividends nor claimed exemption in their original returns, and the legal position was debatable at the relevant time, the Tribunal was justified in refusing rectification. Both questions were answered in the affirmative.
Questions settled- Whether the power conferred on an Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Income-tax Act to rectify an error or mistake is analogous to or wider in scope than the power available to a civil court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an Income-tax Officer rectify an assessment under section 35 of the Income-tax Act based on an error that requires further inquiry and is not apparent from the existing record and proceedings?
- Whether dividend income received by an assessee from a company enjoying a tax holiday under section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act is exempted from income-tax in the hands of the assessee?
- Whether the failure to apply an interpretation of law subsequently declared by courts constitutes a mistake apparent from the record correctable under section 35 of the Income-tax Act when the legal position was previously debatable?
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs AKHTAR HUSSAIN1983 CLC 302 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from an order of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns the extent and rebuttal of the legal presumption of service of a demand notice under Section 30 of the said Act when returned with an endorsement of refusal, and whether a bare denial on oath by the addressee is sufficient to displace it. The Sindh High Court held that while an endorsement of refusal by postal authorities raises a presumption of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, this presumption stands rebutted when the addressee denies receipt on oath in court. Consequently, the burden shifts back to the sender to prove service by examining the postman, which was not done in this case. The court laid down that a statement on oath denying the notice or refusal is sufficient to rebut the presumption, requiring primary evidence through the examining postman to establish valid service.
Questions settled- Does a postal endorsement of refusal raise a presumption of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act?
- Is a statement on oath by the addressee denying receipt sufficient to rebut the presumption of service?
- Can an ejectment application on the ground of default be maintained without proving proper service of a demand notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act?
- Must the postman be examined to prove service when the postal endorsement of refusal is challenged on oath?
- KHAIR DIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other1983 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition concerning the transfer of a composite rural building comprising two shops and a residential unit under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the transfer of the entire residential portion, including the part situated on top of the shop transferred to a respondent, or whether the settlement authorities correctly divided the property and transferred the upper portion along with the shop to the commercial occupant. The Supreme Court held that where a rural building is occupied by more than one person, the inter se entitlement of the occupants must be determined in accordance with the general principles of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and relevant settlement schemes, empowering authorities to divide composite properties vertically or treat parts as commercial units. The Court concluded that the concurrent findings regarding the divisibility and transfer of the property were unexceptionable and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities are competent to order different parts of a composite rural building to be treated separately as commercial or residential units?
- Does a rural building occupied by more than one person require the inter se entitlement of occupants to be determined in accordance with general principles of the Act and Settlement Schemes?
- Can a court interfere with the division of a rural building by settlement authorities where the property is found to be indivisible in a manner that serves the interests of the parties?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs The STATE1983 SC M R124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's bail application by the High Court. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While his co-accused had been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, the petitioner's bail applications were repeatedly dismissed by the High Court on the sole ground that his earlier bail application had been rejected. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of rule of consistency, given that his case was identical to that of his co-accused who were already released on bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the petitioner's case was absolutely at par with that of his co-accused, he was entitled to the same treatment. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, establishing that the rule of consistency must be applied when the role of the accused is identical to those already enlarged on bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of consistency if their co-accused with similar roles have already been released on bail?
- Can a subsequent bail application be dismissed solely on the ground of the rejection of an earlier bail application when co-accused have since been granted bail?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs NAZIR AND Other1983 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which acquitted the respondent of the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of ocular testimony by related witnesses, the corroborative value of a blood-stained weapon recovery, and whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the appreciation of evidence and corroboration warranted a thorough examination. The Court laid down the principle that a case is fit for the reappraisal of evidence by the apex court when the High Court fails to evaluate prosecution evidence in accordance with well-established principles governing criminal cases, particularly regarding related witnesses and corroborative recoveries.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship without proof of a motive to falsely implicate the accused?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon provide sufficient corroboration to ocular testimony in a murder trial?
- When is a criminal case considered fit for the reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court following an acquittal by the High Court?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Mst. GHULAM JANNA T AND Another1983 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an ejectment order granted in favor of the respondent, who required the shop for her son's personal use. After the Rent Controller and the appellate court ruled against the petitioner, the High Court dismissed his writ petition in limine, citing concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's summary dismissal order was legally insufficient and failed to constitute a proper judgment, relying on precedent regarding the disposal of writ petitions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. It held that while a court must demonstrate it has applied its mind, there is no requirement for a writ dismissal order to follow a specific, elaborate format, provided the reasoning is decipherable. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents involving quasi-judicial authorities, noting that here, the impugned order originated from a judicial authority, and the High Court had clearly identified that the concurrent findings of fact did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a High Court required to write a detailed judgment when dismissing a writ petition in limine?
- Does a summary dismissal order in a writ petition satisfy legal requirements if the reasoning is decipherable?
- Can a High Court refuse to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a rent matter under writ jurisdiction?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs MESSRS TANWEER DYEING AND, BLEACHING MILLS1983 PLC 349 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs D.I-G. OF POLICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS &1983 PLC (C. S.) 1183 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHADIM ALI TAHIR vs CHAIRMAN, P.O.F. WAH CANTT.1983 PLC (C. S.) 243 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- KHADI KHAN vs Mst. RESHAM JAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
- Kh. IJAZ AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 690 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
- Kh. AZHAR HUSSAIN AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction of the appellants for murder, attempt to murder, and house trespass. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony of injured and related witnesses, the sustainability of convictions where co-accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt, and the effect of a fugitive appellant. The Supreme Court held that the consistent, direct testimony of injured eye-witnesses sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant Muhammad Aslam despite the acquittal of co-accused, and dismissed the appeal of the fugitive appellant Khawaja Azhar Hussain as he remained absconding. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, whose presence is unquestionable, can safely form the basis of a conviction even if some co-accused are given the benefit of the doubt, provided the evidence against the convicted person is direct and unimpeachable.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of an accused be sustained on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses when some of the co-accused have been acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt?
- What is the legal effect on a criminal appeal when the appellant becomes a fugitive from law?
- Whether the presence of injuries on the person of an accused can substantiate a plea of right of private defence in the face of consistent ocular testimony establishing unprovoked aggression?
- Kh. ABRAR MAJAL AND Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- KAURO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- KAURA vs THE STATE AND Other1983 SCMR 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which directed the police to register a fresh First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding a murder that was already the subject of an existing, registered F.I.R. The core legal question was whether the police can be compelled to register a second F.I.R. for the same occurrence when an investigation into the initial report is already underway. The Supreme Court held that once a case is registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the investigative process is set in motion, and the police are both competent and duty-bound to uncover the truth and identify the actual culprits. Consequently, the registration of a second, fresh report regarding the same transaction is legally unnecessary and improper. The Court observed that the High Court's impugned order likely stemmed from an accidental slip and suggested that the petitioner seek a review before the High Court to rectify the situation. The petition was dismissed with these observations.
Questions settled- Can the police be directed to register a second FIR for the same murder when an FIR has already been registered?
- Is the registration of a fresh FIR necessary when an investigation into the same incident is already pending under an existing FIR?
- Does the registration of a second FIR for the same incident cause prejudice to the accused?
- KASHMIR TIMBER CORPORATION vs AZAD GOVERNMENT1983 CLC 677 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- KARIM JAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for misappropriation of government stores while serving as an incharge of stores in the Agriculture Department. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the entrustment of property and the dishonest intention of the petitioner, and whether the withholding of the original stock register vitiated the trial. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding entrustment and shortage of stock were well-founded, that the petitioner's conduct in absconding when asked to open the store demonstrated a guilty conscience, and that the absence of a formal written order did not negate control where actual custody and control were established. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution must prove a formal written order of appointment to establish entrustment of property in a charge of criminal breach of trust against a public servant?
- Does the failure to produce the original stock register necessarily vitiate a conviction for misappropriation when other evidence proves the shortage?
- Can a public servant's flight or disappearance upon being asked to open a storehouse be used as evidence of a guilty conscience regarding stock deficiencies?
- KARIM DINO vs S. (SHAFIQ) .TRANSPORT Co.1983 PLC 396 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- KARIM BUX vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 509 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
- KARIM BUX alias LALU AND 8 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1983 CLC 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH vs THE STATE AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 169 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH vs Hajiarthi KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 8th of June, 1982, which dismissed the second appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the personal bona fide need and intention to reconstruct could be proved through the statement of the landlord's attorney instead of the landlord himself, and whether impairment of utility and previous litigation findings justified ejectment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's large family, lack of residential accommodation, and the impairment of the premises' utility by installing oil extracting machines were fully supported by evidence, and the absence of the landlord from the witness box did not vitiate the claim. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down that an attorney's statement coupled with sufficient documentary and oral evidence can lawfully substantiate a landlord's bona fide personal need and reconstruction intent in ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a landlord's bona fide personal need and intention to reconstruct be legally established through the statement of his attorney instead of the landlord appearing personally in the witness box?
- Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment recorded by the Rent Controller and appellate authorities can be interfered with in second appeal when supported by sufficient evidence?
- Does the installation of machinery and making alterations that impair the utility of leased premises constitute a valid ground for the tenant's ejectment?
- KARAMAT ALI MALIK vs BATA SHOE COMPANY1983 PLC 365 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →